Firefighters watch home burn to ground...

[Scrappy Doo]

That being said, I enjoy a good debate.

The homeowner is in the wrong and the fire deaprtment is in the right. It couldn't be more clear. He knew the fee, he didn't pay it, he had a fire, fire department doesn't put it out.

Cut and dry. Black and white. Night and day.

Would anybody be crying for me if i chose not to pay my car insurance and my truck and car get totaled by a runaway steamroller? Absolutely not.

It is time for everybody to take a gut-check on personal responsibility in this country. This sue happy, it's not my fault it's theirs attitude has to stop. There are consequences to choices you make. Some good and some are bad. that is why you have the ability to choose. We can use reasoning to decide what would be the best choice. The homeowner chose not to pay for fire protection, so it's completely on him.

[ColdCamaroSS]

Yeah, it's pretty evident my facts hold true (and the story). Human atrocities happen everywhere, everyday, some intervened and many not. It's (was) how we act (together) as decent human beings that grows our society. This is a perfect example of a "test" were the community and FF's failed at intervening at the right time and place.

I like the comment stay on the fact...as if one cannot deviate from any rules to showcase how inhumane they are for agreeing that not helping another human being over $75.

Sad thing is, many of you have forgotten a simple time tested message. "Help your fellow man"

[nova]

Originally Posted by Scrappy Doo

A starving old woman has nothing to do with this story or debate at hand. And please keep the religion out of it.

Here are the FACTS that are not in dispute:
1. Homeowner lives in a county that has no fire protection.
2. Homeowner's county has agreement with nearby CITY to provide fire service for $75 a year.
3. Homeowner did not pay the fee
4. Homeowner's house starts on fire
5. Fire deparmtent responds to save neighbor's house who paid the fee.
6. The homeowner's fire is not tended too and he loses his house.

You could examine the "what ifs" all day long here.

here is one that no one has brought up yet..... "What if by the time the fire department arrived, the house was beyond saveable anyway?"

Stick to the facts to make the decision/or form your opinion.

Quite honestly the city and its fire department are being gracious to provide fire coverage at all, especially for the measly price of $75/year. There's nothing that says they have to provide fire coverage for the surrounding area at all.

[ColdCamaroSS]

Originally Posted by nova

Quite honestly the city and its fire department are being gracious to provide fire coverage at all, especially for the measly price of $75/year. There's nothing that says they have to provide fire coverage for the surrounding area at all.

I agree , In central Alaska, if you live outside the borough, homeowners are SOL, and I'm not sure but do not have a program like the $75 in place.

I am also not arguing the city position on their program, or the homeowners right to not pay the fee. It was the action after the fire started I worry about.

A perfect example of failure of the human race

[PQ]

Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS

Long but hits the point on the head.


,

I don't think it does at all.

The lady in the story had no means with which to pay. And, again, it would be WRONG to force the store owner to give freely. Christ never MADE anyone do anything.

But I'd be the employee. I'd have gave her food and put money in the register from my own pocket.

We're talking about a man who had plenty of means to pay, and I doubt seriously will starve.

[WadeWilson]

Originally Posted by Scrappy Doo

That being said, I enjoy a good debate.

The homeowner is in the wrong and the fire deaprtment is in the right. It couldn't be more clear. He knew the fee, he didn't pay it, he had a fire, fire department doesn't put it out.

Cut and dry. Black and white. Night and day.

Would anybody be crying for me if i chose not to pay my car insurance and my truck and car get totaled by a runaway steamroller? Absolutely not.

It is time for everybody to take a gut-check on personal responsibility in this country. This sue happy, it's not my fault it's theirs attitude has to stop. There are consequences to choices you make. Some good and some are bad. that is why you have the ability to choose. We can use reasoning to decide what would be the best choice. The homeowner chose not to pay for fire protection, so it's completely on him.

Well said sir!!

[ColdCamaroSS]

Originally Posted by PQ

I don't think it does at all.

The lady in the story had no means with which to pay. And, again, it would be WRONG to force the store owner to give freely. Christ never MADE anyone do anything.

But I'd be the employee. I'd have gave her food and put money in the register from my own pocket.

We're talking about a man who had plenty of means to pay, and I doubt seriously will starve.

First scrappy's quote

here is one that no one has brought up yet..... "What if by the time the fire department arrived, the house was beyond saveable anyway?"

Well at least they tried.

PQ-

I respect your insight on the parallel I provided, your right she said "I can't pay". But we do not know why the homeowner did not..what we do know is they said they would pay anything to the fire service once the fire became out of control. The act of the "city/department" remained the same...no too bad.

Your right, free will prevented anything good from happening at that place.

[PQ]

The theme these days is that we can't take care of ourselves. And so the 'Community' takes over our decision making. Can't allow anyone to suffer due to a bad decision.

We have become like the 'Enabling' parent. Who defends their children no matter what. And they never really wonder why their kids are so screwed up and unproductive. Because they are still making excuses for them. Until they absolutely could never even be shown. They are in denial.

We are spoiling those ones. And who suffers? The ones who do as they are supposed to. WHY??? Because too much attention and resource is given the former.

I am guilty of being an enabler at times. But it's to a fault. And someone will suffer for it. Maybe barely, maybe greatly. The weight of the situation only teaches stronger lessons. The foundation core principle is the same.

But that's me.

[Russell James]

I think everyone involved with the story is in the wrong. The end result is destroyed property and animals burned alive because of the ignorance of people.

Those that think - no lives were lost or in danger - have you read about the pets that burned up while the firemen watched. Have you read about the horses that burned alive in a barn at another fire... because the firemen were told "that address is not on the list" - let it burn.

So these firemen, chief, and mayor stood their ground and said - no pay, let it burn. Well good for them. Hope they sleep well at night for standing their ground.

Some day if they need help from their fellow man in an emergency, let's all check the list first and see if they are worthy of our assistance.

Yes, the home owner was in the wrong for not paying. But, should emergency assistance be refused based on a missed payment? Let's think that one over while we imagine how the animals felt being burned alive.

Your there, you have a fire truck, turn the fcking hose on. Just my opinion.


Quote from another news source:

"Unfortunately, this home owner had forgotten to pay the annual fee, which he had always done before. When the fireman arrived, they told him that the 911 operator had just called on the radio and told them that his house was "not on the approved list", so they couldn´t put the fire out. The home owner and his family then had to stand by and watch everything burn to the ground. They also lost their two dogs and three cats in the fire. It is now known that the individual that usually waives the unpaid fee payment until after a fire, this time he decided to stick with the rules. While playing golf and on a cell phone, this fire chief instructed the firemen to not put water on the house fire due to the owner´s non-payment status.

It now turns out that this was the third house in this county to burn like this over the past few years, and in one case, a barn burned to the ground killing all the horses inside. At that fire, the firemen were apparently told before they left the station that the home owner hadn´t paid the $75.00 fee, so the fire truck never even left the station.."

[PoorMansCamaro]

yeah, but you let this one exception go, and soon you'll have two...then three, then four...etc, etc. When do you stop? I say stop at 0. If the guy has pets, he should protect them by paying for the insurance. It's very simple. You know the rules. You know the concequences, you need to live by your own actions.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS

PQ-

I respect your insight on the parallel I provided, your right she said "I can't pay". But we do not know why the homeowner did not..what we do know is they said they would pay anything to the fire service once the fire became out of control. The act of the "city/department" remained the same...no too bad.

Your right, free will prevented anything good from happening at that place.

Perhaps I should state my assumtions.

I assume the fire department didn't just start this new crazy 'let it burn' policy without fair warnings. I assume the homeowner got the warnings and made his choices. I assume they've had problems in the past.

I don't think I'm out of line with these assumptions in a civilized and especially a 'liablilty laden' scociety as we've become. Everything has to be someones fault.

[Scrappy Doo]

Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS

I agree , In central Alaska, if you live outside the borough, homeowners are SOL, and I'm not sure but do not have a program like the $75 in place.

I am also not arguing the city position on their program, or the homeowners right to not pay the fee. It was the action after the fire started I worry about.
A perfect example of failure of the human race

Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS

First scrappy's quote

here is one that no one has brought up yet..... "What if by the time the fire department arrived, the house was beyond saveable anyway?"

Well at least they tried.

PQ-

I respect your insight on the parallel I provided, your right she said "I can't pay". But we do not know why the homeowner did not..what we do know is they said they would pay anything to the fire service once the fire became out of control. The act of the "city/department" remained the same...no too bad.

Your right, free will prevented anything good from happening at that place.

If you are basing your arguement on what happened once the fire department got there then i'll add this. What difference does it make if the department tried to put the fire out?

Do you know anything about putting out fires? (I am by no means an expert and do not claim to be one)

Fires are not what like you see on TV. Fire gets into walls, attics, basements, etc. You can't put water on a fire that you can't see.

Fires in a residential structure are difficult to contain and get out of control rapidly. Once a fire has gotten going in a residential structure, the safety of the fire personnel fighting this fire has to be considered. Simply sitting outside and doing a perimeter attack on the house certainly wouldn't save it. (which is the way most departments operate anyway. This prevents an isolated fire from becoming a major fire)

And I know it may be diddifcult for people to understand that haven't had to make tough choices, but saving someone's house is not worth a human life. (Which we know certainly wasn't in danger at this particular fire)

That brings us back to the this thing called laws. Call them laws, rules, ordinances, statutes, suggestions, or whisperings from a gifted psychic: rules are meant to be obeyed. The homeowner chose not to obey the rules about fire protection, the fire chief/city manager chose to abide by the set of rules that are in place. That is it.

[Jay_LHD3]

Originally Posted by Russell James

I think everyone involved with the story is in the wrong. The end result is destroyed property and animals burned alive because of the ignorance of people.

Those that think - no lives were lost or in danger - have you read about the pets that burned up while the firemen watched. Have you read about the horses that burned alive in a barn at another fire... because the firemen were told "that address is not on the list" - let it burn.

So these firemen, chief, and mayor stood their ground and said - no pay, let it burn. Well good for them. Hope they sleep well at night for standing their ground.

Some day if they need help from their fellow man in an emergency, let's all check the list first and see if they are worthy of our assistance.

Yes, the home owner was in the wrong for not paying. But, should emergency assistance be refused based on a missed payment? Let's think that one over while we imagine how the animals felt being burned alive.

Your there, you have a fire truck, turn the fcking hose on. Just my opinion.


Quote from another news source:

"Unfortunately, this home owner had forgotten to pay the annual fee, which he had always done before. When the fireman arrived, they told him that the 911 operator had just called on the radio and told them that his house was "not on the approved list", so they couldn´t put the fire out. The home owner and his family then had to stand by and watch everything burn to the ground. They also lost their two dogs and three cats in the fire. It is now known that the individual that usually waives the unpaid fee payment until after a fire, this time he decided to stick with the rules. While playing golf and on a cell phone, this fire chief instructed the firemen to not put water on the house fire due to the owner´s non-payment status.

It now turns out that this was the third house in this county to burn like this over the past few years, and in one case, a barn burned to the ground killing all the horses inside. At that fire, the firemen were apparently told before they left the station that the home owner hadn´t paid the $75.00 fee, so the fire truck never even left the station.."

They said it took two hours for the fire to get from the barrels to the house. I think the pets were saved. Making that source appear uncredible to me.

[ColdCamaroSS]

Originally Posted by Scrappy Doo

If you are basing your arguement on what happened once the fire department got there then i'll add this. What difference does it make if the department tried to put the fire out?

Do you know anything about putting out fires? (I am by no means an expert and do not claim to be one)

Fires are not what like you see on TV. Fire gets into walls, attics, basements, etc. You can't put water on a fire that you can't see.

Fires in a residential structure are difficult to contain and get out of control rapidly. Once a fire has gotten going in a residential structure, the safety of the fire personnel fighting this fire has to be considered. Simply sitting outside and doing a perimeter attack on the house certainly wouldn't save it. (which is the way most departments operate anyway. This prevents an isolated fire from becoming a major fire)

And I know it may be diddifcult for people to understand that haven't had to make tough choices, but saving someone's house is not worth a human life. (Which we know certainly wasn't in danger at this particular fire)

That brings us back to the this thing called laws. Call them laws, rules, ordinances, statutes, suggestions, or whisperings from a gifted psychic: rules are meant to be obeyed. The homeowner chose not to obey the rules about fire protection, the fire chief/city manager chose to abide by the set of rules that are in place. That is it.

Hey, you asked the question.